Ron Paul: 'Glee' in administration after 9/11

AMES, Iowa — Ron Paul isn’t backing down from his position that the U.S. has provoked terrorists through foreign military occupation and that officials tried to capitalize on Sept. 11 attacks.

“Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat,” Paul said Thursday night before a packed room of more than 1,000 students and supporters. “That’s exactly what they’re doing now with Iran.”

Text Size

POLITICO 44

Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer responded to the “glee” charge by tweeting, “The man is nuts.”

The remarks came as Paul ramped up his efforts in Iowa, where the caucuses are less than a month away. As the field has fluctuated, Paul has gained steam here, polling near the top of the pack.

His libertarian ideals have struck a cord with many, but conservatives remain deeply wary of Paul’s foreign policy positions, including his assertion that the U.S. provoked the Sept. 11 attacks by maintaining military bases in foreign countries. Paul’s position as the lone dove in the GOP race has made him a foil for some of his hawkish Republican opponents.

“Extremists have taken over, and they’re the ones who run the foreign policy and have convinced us to go along with all these wars,” Paul said Wednesday night.

Paul said that claims Iran could be developing a nuclear weapon are just part of an effort to scare Americans into going to war again.

Paul said of the possibility that Iran has a nuclear weapon is “not true at all.” “It doesn’t mean they might not want a nuclear weapon.”

No other country, Paul said, is capable of attacking the United States.

“How many foreign countries can threaten us right now?” Paul asked sarcastically. “How many are likely to invade us or drop a bomb on us? I can’t imagine.”

Paul railed on the PATRIOT Act, a pet issue that he frequently brings up on the trail.

“The PATRIOT Act was written many, many years before 9/11,” Paul said. The attacks simply provided “an opportunity for some people to do what they wanted to do,” he said.

Paul again called for an end to all sanctions currently imposed on Cuba, which he has said only make Cubans dislike Americans.

Paul questioned the integrity of the American election process, evoking a line often used to describe a desire to promote democratic elections in the Middle East.

“I wish we could guarantee a democratic and honest election in this country as well,” Paul said. “The democratic process in this country has a long way to go.”

Though he has repeatedly waved off the notion of waging a third-party bid, Paul blamed the two-party system for what he said were problems with the American electoral system.

“People are tired of it now, they don’t trust it and they know something is wrong,” Paul said.

Paul has ramped up his tour of Iowa, trying to bolster his position in the polls that currently have him near the top of the pack. He also spoke to groups in Des Moines and Boone on Thursday.

Also among the civil liberties issues Paul raised was the “war on drugs,” which he brought up at the student event but did not raise before the small town crowd in Boone.

“A lot more people died from the consequences of the war on drugs than the drugs themselves,” Paul said.

Readers' Comments (65)

Ron Paul is following Historic just war policy. A Just war is a defensive war. It is the people associated with both Bush presidencies that are out of step with historic US policy and with Just War principles.

The 1991 Gulf war was a pre-emptive war and therefore an unjust war. Clinton compounded the problem with all the cruise missiles he sent into Iraq. 9/11 and the Iraq war are just more battles in the war we started in 1991.

Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to Bush in 1991 said: There was a struggle and had been a struggle going on within OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries] . . . between Saudi Arabia and the radicals, over keeping production flowing and keeping prices reasonable. The notion of Iraq . . . acquiring the Kuwaiti resources and thus perhaps of being able to dominate, OPEC was a tremendous danger to the United States and to the industrialized world. - Brent Scowcroft, Front line interview, the gulf war, 1996

The war with Iraq was initiated for two reasons. First, because we didn't want Iraq in control of OPEC as this quote states. - but, it was not our business to influence OPEC politics through war. Second, we have mutual defense agreement with Saudi Arabia. The Bush Senior team reasoned in 1991 that it would be better to strike first, rather than wait to see if Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia. We had no just cause to launch the 1991 Gulf War.

The US will never win an unjust war. We will only become bogged down. Not because of our military might, but because of the will to win. A just war must be waged to a full victory that leads to a superior peace. This was not achieved in Viet Nam, and will not be achieved in Iraq. We have certainly caused more problems than we have solved.

Ron Paul is following Historic just war policy. A Just war is a defensive war. It is the people associated with both Bush presidencies that are out of step with historic US policy and with Just War principles.

The 1991 Gulf war was a pre-emptive war and therefore an unjust war. Clinton compounded the problem with all the cruise missiles he sent into Iraq. 9/11 and the Iraq war are just more battles in the war we started in 1991.

Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to Bush in 1991 said: There was a struggle and had been a struggle going on within OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries] . . . between Saudi Arabia and the radicals, over keeping production flowing and keeping prices reasonable. The notion of Iraq . . . acquiring the Kuwaiti resources and thus perhaps of being able to dominate, OPEC was a tremendous danger to the United States and to the industrialized world. - Brent Scowcroft, Front line interview, the gulf war, 1996

The war with Iraq was initiated for two reasons. First, because we didn't want Iraq in control of OPEC as this quote states. - but, it was not our business to influence OPEC politics through war. Second, we have mutual defense agreement with Saudi Arabia. The Bush Senior team reasoned in 1991 that it would be better to strike first, rather than wait to see if Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia. We had no just cause to launch the 1991 Gulf War.

The US will never win an unjust war. We will only become bogged down. Not because of our military might, but because of the will to win. A just war must be waged to a full victory that leads to a superior peace. This was not achieved in Viet Nam, and will not be achieved in Iraq. We have certainly caused more problems than we have solved.

Ron Paul is absolutely right. All one has to do is read official government reports, particularly from our own CIA etc...and furthermore, it doesn't take a genius to figure out if you occupy and bomb other countries, they are going to want to exact revenge> . I see nothing nutty about Paul here. Too bad the media, particularly "inside the beltway" media outlets, continue to report and distort his positions, rather than focusing on the truth of US imperialism and educating the public.

All the other candidates, including Obama, are offering is the prospect of war with Iran. For the last 30 years, all Iran has heard from the U.S. and other nuclear powers is threats of war. Why wouldn’t Iran want a nuclear weapon to protect itself or level the playing field? Maybe talking might get us farther than saber rattling; it helped us avoid war with nuclear powers like the Soviet Union and China.

If Iran must be opposed militarily, let a nuclear power like Israel or a coalition of the Gulf states oppose Iran. Iran is oceans and continents away from the United States. Why is American blood and treasure required? We cannot afford it, and we have already lost thousands of young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A nation like Iran, that "cannot even provide gasoline" for its people is hardly poised to become an expansionist empire. Our war in Iraq gave Iran more influence in Iraq, and near sovereignty in southern Iraq. We continue to fight in Afghanistan and bomb Pakistan. By destabilizing Iran's neighbors, U.S. policy is enabling Iranian expansionism. The U.S. policy makers are facilitating the very ends they claim to oppose.

A re-evaluation of our policies in the Middle East, and toward Iran, is long overdue.

I wonder if it bothers Mr. Fleischer that a majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, but we invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Didn't Bush run on a "no nation building" platform in 2000? Either Mr. Fleischer is too insane to admit the obvious or he's just likes lying (the press secretary job makes sense now).

Even more so, Bush's ineptitude on acting on pre-attack intel. I could go on and on. I couldn't sleep at night making statements like this.

As a Tea Party conservative, I lauded and supported Michelle Bachmann and Hermain Cain. Still think they are great, But I am really considering a vote for Ron Paul in the primary. At least he is a nationalist. I like his foreign policy views, and at least Ron paul is not a grovelling, subservient vasssal to Netanyahu like so many AIPAC endorsed conservatives. And Ron Paul at least has a grasp on fiscal responibility and acknowleges our national debt to foreign creditors as a real problem that needs fixed by a balanced budget.

When are you going to get it through your head? Obama/Gingrich/Romney's foriegn policy of constant meddling, bailouts, welfare for dictators and killing innocent people is way better than your foreign policy of peace, trade and friendship.